Some drivers at DoorDash and Grubhub supported the New York City pay bump, but others say it will actually mean less pay and freedom.

  • squidman64@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m struggling to understand how increased pay is bad for the workers, can anyone explain that to me?

    • TheGreatFox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, you see, the CEO really wants another mega-yacht. So obviously, decreasing profits by actually paying their workers a reasonable wage is bad, it’ll delay the purchase of the yacht by days. Multiple days even!

    • fiat_lux@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      From the article, a few drivers were concerned that mandating benefits and hourly wages would require the companies to implement work scheduling and eliminate the driver’s time and commitment flexibility. This is the consequence DoorDash is also implicitly threatening.

      Which, is… a valid concern from the perspective that companies will always do what is in their best interest rather than employee interests. But wages and benefits have no actual dependency on scheduling even if it’s a common implementation. So they’re basically just scared of any change which might affect their current precarious income, understandably. And DoorDash are obviously financially short-sightedly invested in drivers staying scared and exploitable.

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        But wages and benefits have no actual dependency on scheduling

        This is only loosely true. If companies must pay a stable hourly wage, then they’re going to want stable continuous labor for that. As of now, drivers are paid for each job, which creates a lot of flexibility for both parties. If that becomes illegal, Uber Eats etc. isn’t going to want to pay people to sit around in between jobs. It also allows them to explicity direct a driver to do a certain job rather than offer a job to a driver.

        It’s fundamentally a pretty different dynamic. Some people might find it preferable, others won’t. There’s some nuance here

        • fiat_lux@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t consider what a company wants to be a true dependency. It’s a strong and valid desire to prevent unnecessary financial loss, but it’s not a requirement with only one possible solution.

          If gig SaaS companies are innovative enough to come up with a way to allow remote commitment flexibility in the first place, they’re creative enough to come up with ways of preventing drivers abusing that system without scheduling them in fixed time blocks in this day and age. Threatening a schedule is just the easy way out and a scary enough threat to drivers to get them to side with DoorDash.

          • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I guess ultimately, it’s a question of why they would bother to put in time, effort, and money into developing procedures that offer them no real benefit.

            Ideally, I’d rather see the development of a formalized gig worker legal status, but that would require the government to be capable of thought.

    • vacuumpizzasA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      From reading only the article and none of its cited sources: the change requires a $.50/minute increase while the driver is in the middle of a gig, or $17.96 (which is the rounded $18 in the headline). Assuming the driver is literally doing a job every minute (i.e. no gaps in-between deliveries), then that’s a $30 for an entire hour. So the cost-effective alternative is to have the employee on an hourly wage and just pay them $18/hr for x hours that they’re scheduled for. The quotes in the article explained how the switching from a per-job model to a “do as many jobs in the hours we schedule you for” means they’ll lose the benefit of flexible work schedules.

      That said, I think the economy will speak for itself. Given the number of times I see companies complain in the media about “nobody wants to work”, they’ll need to pony up the money in order to maintain their share in the market.

      • squidman64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        That doesn’t make sense at all…it’s an $18/hr minimum, not maximum. They can still pay them more than that if they do more deliveries.

        • vacuumpizzasA
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          With the per-delivery model, the drivers have the option to pick and choose which jobs to accept.

          Being speculative, I believe the scare tactic being used is: the driver can be assigned very unattractive deliveries without the power to refuse. As someone that does not do deliveries for any of these companies and periodically viewed posts from /r/doordash, I can only guess that this will hurt a smaller percentage of drivers that formulate a metagame to maximize their delivery income.

    • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I guess some are worried that whatever extra is given to them officially may be clawed back from them in some other way, unofficially.